The Etiology, Assessment and Treatment of Compulsive Checking: A Review.

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Psychology Research and Behavior Management Pub Date : 2025-05-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PRBM.S431339
Sisi Guo, Mina Yadegar, Helen Khaw, Susanna Chang
{"title":"The Etiology, Assessment and Treatment of Compulsive Checking: A Review.","authors":"Sisi Guo, Mina Yadegar, Helen Khaw, Susanna Chang","doi":"10.2147/PRBM.S431339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Checking is the most reported compulsion of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), impacting 80% of individuals with the psychiatric condition. In this narrative review, we describe the theoretical conceptualization and empirical research of compulsive checking to highlight advancements and limitations in our current understanding of OCD. In terms of etiology, research shows that anxiety, uncertainty and inflated responsibility elicit checking, which in turn negatively impact memory confidence and higher-level cognitive functions. In addition, compulsive checking is linked to altered neural activities in the brain's subcortical regions. Although these studies have their methodological limitations, they collectively highlight the behavioral, cognitive and neurobiological underpinnings of OCD. In terms of assessment of compulsions such as checking, there is a suite of empirically validated tools that range from standardized diagnostic interviews to self-report measures. Recent innovations also include experimental and technology-assisted assessment tools. Finally, in terms of treatment, Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP) is the most empirically supported intervention for OCD that is supported by habituation and inhibitory learning models. There is preliminary support for cognitive therapy to target specific symptoms such as compulsive checking. However, more rigorous testing is warranted to determine its efficacy and mechanism of change.</p>","PeriodicalId":20954,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Research and Behavior Management","volume":"18 ","pages":"1253-1268"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12126976/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Research and Behavior Management","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S431339","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Checking is the most reported compulsion of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), impacting 80% of individuals with the psychiatric condition. In this narrative review, we describe the theoretical conceptualization and empirical research of compulsive checking to highlight advancements and limitations in our current understanding of OCD. In terms of etiology, research shows that anxiety, uncertainty and inflated responsibility elicit checking, which in turn negatively impact memory confidence and higher-level cognitive functions. In addition, compulsive checking is linked to altered neural activities in the brain's subcortical regions. Although these studies have their methodological limitations, they collectively highlight the behavioral, cognitive and neurobiological underpinnings of OCD. In terms of assessment of compulsions such as checking, there is a suite of empirically validated tools that range from standardized diagnostic interviews to self-report measures. Recent innovations also include experimental and technology-assisted assessment tools. Finally, in terms of treatment, Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP) is the most empirically supported intervention for OCD that is supported by habituation and inhibitory learning models. There is preliminary support for cognitive therapy to target specific symptoms such as compulsive checking. However, more rigorous testing is warranted to determine its efficacy and mechanism of change.

强迫性检查的病因、评估与治疗综述。
检查是强迫症(OCD)中报告最多的强迫行为,影响了80%的精神疾病患者。在这篇叙述性回顾中,我们描述了强迫性检查的理论概念和实证研究,以突出我们目前对强迫症的理解的进步和局限性。在病因学方面,研究表明,焦虑、不确定和夸大的责任会引发检查,进而对记忆信心和更高层次的认知功能产生负面影响。此外,强迫性检查与大脑皮层下区域的神经活动改变有关。尽管这些研究在方法上有局限性,但它们共同强调了强迫症的行为、认知和神经生物学基础。在检查等强迫行为的评估方面,有一套经验验证的工具,范围从标准化诊断访谈到自我报告测量。最近的创新还包括实验和技术辅助评估工具。最后,在治疗方面,暴露和反应预防(ERP)是经验支持最多的强迫症干预措施,它得到了习惯化和抑制性学习模型的支持。初步支持认知疗法针对特定症状,如强迫性检查。然而,更严格的测试是必要的,以确定其效力和机制的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.70%
发文量
341
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Psychology Research and Behavior Management is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on the science of psychology and its application in behavior management to develop improved outcomes in the clinical, educational, sports and business arenas. Specific topics covered in the journal include: -Neuroscience, memory and decision making -Behavior modification and management -Clinical applications -Business and sports performance management -Social and developmental studies -Animal studies The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical studies, surveys, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, case reports and extended reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信